Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF against evolution
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 466 of 562 (134258)
08-16-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by yxifix
08-16-2004 5:02 AM


Re: turtles all the way down?
So I am sorry man.... you forgot about "etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc" I have mentioned. It's not just a cell can't be created without DNA code it is also:
Eyes can't be created without already existing DNA code for vision.
DNA code for vision can't be created without already existing vision.
Again, and not surprisingly, your logic is flawed.
The DNA code can come before the trait - this happens everytime genetic engineering takes place in the lab.
Imagine an organism that has no light sensation - a mutation occurs in its DNA sequence that results in protein that allows the organism to detect light. The organism now has extremely rudimentary 'vision', where before there was none.
Please explain specifically where this scenario is flawed, and specifically why DNA sequence cannot precede the protein it codes for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:02 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:40 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 467 of 562 (134259)
08-16-2004 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by yxifix
08-16-2004 5:13 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
Read message 226 in different forum. There are also proofs my definitions are correct, your ones are not. The only and exact definitions are these:
yxifix-
All message 226 contains is your asserted definitions, a description of Pasteur's work which has no bearing on your assertions, and a poor computer analogy. Neither constitutes evidence, let alone proof.
You insult everyone for not reading the entire thread - you've evidently ignored the entire thread, since the fact that your message 226 proves absolutely nothing has been explained to you numerous times.
[As a side note: it is spelled "proved" - I thought you were making a typo, but since you wrote "prooved" six times in boldface in the last message I'll assume you are unaware of the correct spelling.]
Just because you assert something is "proof" does not make it so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:13 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:45 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 468 of 562 (134262)
08-16-2004 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by pink sasquatch
08-16-2004 5:20 AM


Re: turtles all the way down?
a mutation occurs in its DNA sequence that results in protein that allows the organism to detect light.
Sorry, another hopeless attempt
Before replying (that will be very easy) you have to answer also to other points surely, that means: bones, hair, lungs, teeth, tongue, million other things (eg heart, blood, veins, nails).
This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-16-2004 04:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-16-2004 5:20 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Wounded King, posted 08-16-2004 8:00 AM yxifix has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 469 of 562 (134263)
08-16-2004 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by pink sasquatch
08-16-2004 5:30 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
All message 226 contains is your asserted definitions, a description of Pasteur's work which has no bearing on your assertions, and a poor computer analogy. Neither constitutes evidence, let alone proof.
You have to show evidence for your premise.
You insult everyone for not reading the entire thread - you've evidently ignored the entire thread, since the fact that your message 226 proves absolutely nothing has been explained to you numerous times
You have to show evidence for your premise once again. I see IGNORANCE is you main hobby. I won't continue in discussion until you will show your evidences.
Just because you assert something is "proof" does not make it so.
You have to show evidence for your premise. (btw, I've just showed expertiments and proofs, so what assertion? ....so sorry man, hopeless attempt)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-16-2004 5:30 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by mark24, posted 08-16-2004 6:03 AM yxifix has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 470 of 562 (134264)
08-16-2004 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by yxifix
08-16-2004 5:45 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
yxifix,
You have to show evidence for your premise.
Why, you don't? Pasteurs demolition of Spontaneous generation isn't relevant evidence that the genetic code/information could not appear naturally.
I point this out here. You failed to address any of the relevant points, I go to the trouble of listing the unaddressed points along with exactly what you need to do to directly address them, & you fucked that up, too (messages 245-247).
In short, your Pasteur "evidence" has been rebutted, & you have failed to address any of the points. Your "premise" that Pasteur's work is a proof against information appearing naturally is in tatters.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:45 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 7:11 AM mark24 has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 471 of 562 (134270)
08-16-2004 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by mark24
08-16-2004 6:03 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
mark24 writes:
Why, you don't? Pasteurs demolition of Spontaneous generation isn't relevant evidence that the genetic code/information could not appear naturally.
Oh noooo... Again ? You are poor ignorant man.
I have never said that spontaneous generation is or should be an evidence that genetic code (or inforamtion) could not appear without using another information by accident. Read it 20 times. (if I've said that, quote me!)
message 247 in different forum.
If Pasteur showed us a proof (you are the only who think spontaneous generation is possible!) then it means another experiments showed us proofs about Accident and Information mentioned in a message 226 And that would mean evolution is nonsense, mark. You can do nothing about it. You can't fool the truth. Remember this.
I point this out here. You failed to address any of the relevant points, I go to the trouble of listing the unaddressed points along with exactly what you need to do to directly address them, & you fucked that up, too (messages 245-247).
Sorry... your points were absolutely offtopic as can be seen in mentioned messages:
message 245
message 246
and mainly in the message 247
In short, your Pasteur "evidence" has been rebutted, & you have failed to address any of the points. Your "premise" that Pasteur's work is a proof against information appearing naturally is in tatters.
In fact, Pasteur showed us clear proof that spontaneous generation is not possible. You are the only who is saying it is not proof, as I've already said.
The same as "Every human lives because of oxygen which is needed to stay him alive".
And once again - you are the only who said it is not a fact (there is no proof) that every human lives because of oxygen which is needed to stay him alive ! ! !
message 248.
What are you trying to show? And now please stop with your ignorance. Everybody with a brain must see how unbelievably strange person you are.
This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-16-2004 06:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by mark24, posted 08-16-2004 6:03 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by mark24, posted 08-16-2004 8:15 AM yxifix has replied
 Message 474 by mark24, posted 08-16-2004 8:49 AM yxifix has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 472 of 562 (134278)
08-16-2004 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by yxifix
08-16-2004 5:40 AM


Re: turtles all the way down?
Way to evade the question yxifix, especially such an easy one.
If you want step by step speculation on every single nucleotide mutation and chromosomal event neccessary to change a unicellular species into a modern vertebrate we may need an awfully long amount of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 5:40 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:52 AM Wounded King has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 473 of 562 (134280)
08-16-2004 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by yxifix
08-16-2004 7:11 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
You've just repeated the same old bollocks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 7:11 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:54 AM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 474 of 562 (134283)
08-16-2004 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by yxifix
08-16-2004 7:11 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
yxifix,
Read all of this response, please, before replying. Leave it a couple of hours & think about what I've written, please do not immediately respond without thoroughly digesting the implications of what I have written.
Pasteur showed that something that was supposed to act all the time, didn't. You have failed to provide a valid test that something that happened once in 4,500,000,000 years didn't. Why? Because the time & physical scales of Pasteurs "proof" is relevant to his experiment. Nothing you have shown meets this criteria.
I might have placed a football in the Sahara Desert. What would you need to do in order to PROOVE that I didn't?
1/ search a small area for 5 minutes? Or;
2/ Search the entire desert.
If you don't conduct a test of relevant proportions you show nothing.
In order to PROVE something you must have 100% knowledge of all instances of what ever it is you are talking about. Clearly you don't posess this information, which makes your argument analogous to the football/scenario.
This is why your following "proofs", aren't proofs at all. You do NOT possess 100% knowledge of what occurs today, let alone what occurred in a primeval sea 3.5bn years ago.
quote:
a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).
Accident:
1. It is prooved by accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. It is prooved if there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.
Information:
1. It is prooved by information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. It is prooved the information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).
You have not scoured the earths entire history, & studied every molecular interaction that occurred in order to have PROVEN anything.
GET IT!!!!!?????
By claiming otherwise you are essentially searching the desert for a nanosecond for a football, don't find it, then claim it is PROVEN that it doesn't exist.
As I've said countless times before, this is an argument of the form; because it isn't proven to be true, it is false. An argument from ignorance. Your argument is of this form, therefore it is an argument from ignorance, & therefore it is logically invalid.
Sorry, you're only against the rest of the world on this one, not me.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 7:11 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 10:10 AM mark24 has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 475 of 562 (134284)
08-16-2004 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by Wounded King
08-16-2004 8:00 AM


Re: turtles all the way down?
Wounded King writes:
Way to evade the question yxifix, especially such an easy one.
No, it is not easy. When you are in a discussion with mark24, you have to show evidences for your premises. What I've done so he can't say it is just my assertion and he is right. (that's how his demagogy works)
If you want step by step speculation on every single nucleotide mutation and chromosomal event neccessary to change a unicellular species into a modern vertebrate we may need an awfully long amount of time.
Wounded King, it doesn't matter. Please show me how an information can "arise" itself. I'm very very interested in fictional stories. I like it.
Show us all an example and then apply it to some part of macro-evolution. Thank you.
Otherwise I'm not interested in your fantastic dreams about "arising" information, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Wounded King, posted 08-16-2004 8:00 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Wounded King, posted 08-16-2004 9:28 AM yxifix has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 476 of 562 (134285)
08-16-2004 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by mark24
08-16-2004 8:15 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
You've just repeated the same old bollocks again.
That were my evidences for premise, I know you don't like it. But as I said, you can do nothing about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by mark24, posted 08-16-2004 8:15 AM mark24 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 477 of 562 (134288)
08-16-2004 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by yxifix
08-16-2004 4:27 AM


yxifix writes:
All in all... I want to tell you only one thing -> Do NOT reply like this before you have read whole discussion!! Thank you.
Arguments like, "There has to be DNA for hair before there can be hair," did not originate with you. These are IDist arguments, and we see them here all the time. Your information argument isn't new, and I don't have to read the whole thread to know where you're coming from. The problem with your argument is that the very processes you say it disallows, namely allele frequency changing over time and mutation modifying and adding information to the genome, are both observed and inferred to happen.
I'd say I probably disagree with Pink Sasquatch about evolution not involving creation of information. The first life was billions of years ago, and that first life did not have DNA for eyes, teeth and eyes, so that DNA must have developed over time from some process, and that process is called evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 4:27 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 10:23 AM Percy has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 478 of 562 (134290)
08-16-2004 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by yxifix
08-16-2004 8:52 AM


Re: turtles all the way down?
No, it is not easy.
Well make your mind up, you just said it was very easy!
All you seem to be doing is using the same old first cause argument but changing information for cause. The primary origin of the information content of the universe is not something we can determine, this does not mean it was derived supernaturally.
You seem to spend half your time making some sort of argument against abiogenesis, how is this relevant to macro-evolution? What in fact do you mean by macro-evolution? Speciation, gross morphological changes, something different again?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:52 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 10:27 AM Wounded King has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 479 of 562 (134296)
08-16-2004 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by mark24
08-16-2004 8:49 AM


Re: So you wanna proof?
mark24 writes:
Pasteur showed that something that was supposed to act all the time,
....spontaneous generation... yes.
didn't. You have failed to provide a valid test that something that happened once in 4,500,000,000 years didn't.
4,500,000,000. Assertion. You have to show evidence for your premise. Don't forget. But I'll forget this... We can change it to "all of the time", ok.
Why? Because the time & physical scales of Pasteurs "proof" is relevant to his experiment. Nothing you have shown meets this criteria.
I might have placed a football in the Sahara Desert. What would you need to do in order to PROOVE that I didn't?
1/ search a small area for 5 minutes? Or;
2/ Search the entire desert.
If you don't conduct a test of relevant proportions you show nothing.
Absolutely wrong example - demagogic example.....Pasteur is explaining "how" and "why" it is not possible. Pasteur's aim was not to prove the bacterias are spontaneously generated somewhere. GET IT? I think yes.
So corrected question would be:
Q: Can you find out why it is so difficult to play football in the Sahara desert?
A: Yes, I know what's the problem and I can prove it... experiment took place in the Sahara desert, 40 km away from the sea in order to find out. Conclusion: It is very difficult, because there is too much sand there. Surface must be much harder in order to play football much easier.
And my question for you, Mark, is... do I have to go further 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m, 500 m,.... in to the desert in order to prove it's the same everywhere in the Sahara desert?
In order to PROVE something you must have 100% knowledge of all instances of what ever it is you are talking about. Clearly you don't posess this information, which makes your argument analogous to the football/scenario.
You should stop asking demagogic questions and "similar" examples.
This is why your following "proofs", aren't proofs at all. You do NOT possess 100% knowledge of what occurs today, let alone what occurred in a primeval sea 3.5bn years ago.
This is still just your hopeless assertion.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).
Accident:
1. It is prooved by accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. It is prooved if there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.
Information:
1. It is prooved by information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. It is prooved the information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have not scoured the earths entire history, & studied every molecular interaction that occurred in order to have PROVEN anything.
GET IT!!!!!?????
Unbelievable.
message 226
There is described experiment for mentioned Information and Accident there, so it is proved. As your example about Sahara desert was not similar at all. So please stop discussing this way, and be fair.
So you are saying if I want to find out if a computer can do an operation [randomly selecting letters] itself without inserted program and without a man to help it to do so, do I have to try experiment on every computer in the world? Please answer clearly, thank you. So we can get to the point very quickly.
As I've said countless times before, this is an argument of the form; because it isn't proven to be true, it is false. An argument from ignorance. Your argument is of this form, therefore it is an argument from ignorance, & therefore it is logically invalid.
Sorry, Pasteur exactly described what is true and what is false (each bacteria is reproducing itself the similar way as all others - none just appear) [see corrected Sahara example]
Sorry, you're only against the rest of the world on this one, not me.
In fact, you are against the rest of the world ....examples mentioned in the message 471

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by mark24, posted 08-16-2004 8:49 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by mark24, posted 08-16-2004 11:01 AM yxifix has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 480 of 562 (134298)
08-16-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Percy
08-16-2004 9:07 AM


Percy writes:
Arguments like, "There has to be DNA for hair before there can be hair," did not originate with you.
In fact, they did. I didn't read any discussion before I registered and started this one.
These are IDist arguments, and we see them here all the time. Your information argument isn't new
So time for clear answer ! ! ! Don't you think?
and I don't have to read the whole thread
Of course, you have to.
to know where you're coming from. The problem with your argument is that the very processes you say it disallows, namely allele frequency changing over time and mutation modifying and adding information to the genome, are both observed and inferred to happen.
Once again... give me clear explanation and example... how can an information "arise" ....I'm not talking about an information changed a little by "mutation". I'm talking about macro-evolution. Thanks for the answer ! Until then it's just your fiction -> I proved it. Sorry you hear the truth.
I'd say I probably disagree with Pink Sasquatch about evolution not involving creation of information.
As I said... read whole discussion.... you are the only one who think evolution involves a creation of information... I'll be happy to discuss this with you !
So now you can tell me, how the initial information evolved. Thanks.
The first life was billions of years ago, and that first life did not have DNA for eyes, teeth and eyes, so that DNA must have developed over time from some process, and that process is called evolution.
OK, you can start to explain, Percy. HOW it happened?
This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-16-2004 09:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Percy, posted 08-16-2004 9:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Percy, posted 08-16-2004 11:05 AM yxifix has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024